Well gosh. It’s a start. From a Boston.com online chat:
Comment From MaryAnn
Do you believe that human beings activity contribute to climate change? Do you think we can reverse it? Do you think we should try?Scott Brown:
MaryAnn: Yes. I believe that human activities are a contributing factor. That is why we need to develop a national energy policy. A true “all of the above approach” is necessary. When re-elected, I look forward to working on this issue.
Now, this is not as strong an about-face as former climate skeptic Robert Muller, who wrote this weekend in the New York Times:
Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.
As climate change denialism appears increasingly silly to everyone, I’m not surprised to see Brown cover this particular square on the chessboard. He sounds like the President. As far as it goes, that’s a good thing. If this were 1989, Brown’s attitude would be welcome and perhaps adequate.
However, the urgency required in this case is far beyond what Brown or Obama are proposing. Social change is slow; climate change is turning out to be pretty damned rapid. It’s a threat to our food supply today. It’s a threat to water supply for many people today. It’s affecting the economy today.
If you acknowledge you’ve got cancer, you’re admitting you’ve got a huge problem on your hands. If you acknowledge that global warming is real, then you damn well better treat it with some urgency. Sen. Brown should put his votes where his mouth is: Support a carbon tax, and changing his tune on supporting military development of renewable energy.
We will see if Brown uses this bland acknowledgement simply to take the climate issue off the table; or if he intends to use his powers of leadership and influence in the GOP caucus to actually try to deal with the real issue.
He could have been doing that all this time. He could do it now — not “when re-elected.”
Is this a green shoot, or a fig leaf?
danfromwaltham says
I was just on her website I did not see one word supporting a carbon tax. We all know Sen. Brown is against a carbon tax and lstopped cap and tax by becoming the 41st senator, since it passed Pelosi’s House of Rep.
Please refrain comparing climate change (been going on since day one of planet earth) to the deadly and cruel disease of cancer. If anyone has seen a loved one suffer with their battles with cancer, one would not even suggest such a comparison.
I believe we have the wrong diagnosis. Let’s us not look at the planet, since it has been warming prior to,the industrial revolution, but look to the alarmists who predict destruction and mass flooding/hurricanes unless we lower our standard of living and use less carbon. I believe what we are dealing with is not cancer, but Munchausen Syndrome.
Charley on the MTA says
who have suffered and suffer from cancer. I hate cancer.
And climate change is a hell of a lot worse, because it affects so many more people. Climate change is death and destruction on a vast scale.
Anyway, you’re wrong about all that. Read the Muller article, linked above. You can believe anything you want, including that Justin Bieber is really a good singer, or that the moon is made of green cheese, but it doesn’t make it correct. It just makes you a crank.
danfromwaltham says
If you had a to pick one, a cure for cancer or cure for global warming/climate change, which would you select?
You are correct, since we can’t predict weather accurately beyond 7 days, I am very skeptical experts can predict temperatures 50-100 years from now. So having seen how cancer tortures people to death, I would select a cure for cancer. What say you? Oh, and I will not respond to your selection but am curious. Thank you.
mike_cote says
Is capable of predicting that in May the temperature in New England will be around 70F on average, in June will be around 80F, in July will be around 90F AND SO ON AND SO ON….
And they print the Farmer’s Almanac in the Fall of the Previous Year.
I am going to make a prediction.
Next Month (August) there will be at least 5 days out of 31 days in which the daily temperature in Boston will exceed 90F.
Of course, I still hold out the belief that the Rover scheduled to land on Mars in a few days will do so successfully and without divine intervention.
While I am at it, I predict that on any given roulette table, red numbers will be selected approximately the same percent of the time as black numbers and that percent will be slightly less than 50%.
I further predict that a fair coin will come up heads approximately 50% of the time.
Isn’t that spooky?!
I further predict that if you ask a Magic 8 Ball a question, if will answer “Ask again later”, once every 20 times.
Spooky????
I don’t know what drive me nuttier? People who don’t understand Probability and Statistics or idiots who will except it from Rasmussen but not from scientists.
mike_cote says
I meant “accept from Rasmussen but not from scientists.”
danfromwaltham says
Back in the early 70’s, The scientific community proposed we put like a black tarp across the Arctic to attract the sun’s rays, to warm the earth.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11643-climate-myths-they-predicted-global-cooling-in-the-1970s.html
SomervilleTom says
Your own link correctly debunks the urban myth that climatologists “declared we were entering an Ice Age” in the 1970s. They did not.
From your link (emphasis mine):
Rubbish like this (“Back in the early 70′s, The scientific community proposed we put like a black tarp across the Arctic to attract the sun’s rays, to warm the earth.”) really is offensively ignorant, especially when accompanied by a link that debunks it.
danfromwaltham says
You know Time and Newsweek had covers predicting a Ice Age. Even NASA. The black tarp to attract the sun is true.
SomervilleTom says
You didn’t say that weekly rags predicted an Ice Age, you said “the scientific community“.
You repeat an urban myth that has been debunked over and over, including in the link you yourself cited.
Do you not KNOW that this claim is false, or do you not care?
kirth says
He does not care. So long as he can make every thread all about him, it’s all good.
mike_cote says
I was 11 and 12 years old. I was learning about science mostly from the NASA missions and about the glaciers from climbing mountains with my father in New Hampshire. But even then, the previous Ice Ages have such an impact on the land in New Hampshire, that you would have to be as Thick as a Brick to quote Jethro Tull to not get that we are suppose to be stewards of the world, not leeches.
mike_cote says
Unless of course you believe the Global Warming is like the buildup of gases in your intestine. Since I don’t know if you are running a fever or suffer from constipation, which I somehow doubt given all the effluence you dump here regularly. To quote Monty Python,”What’s Brown and sounds like a bell?'”
Dung Brown
Monty Python will always be relevant.
Please refrain from tell me not to say bad things about this idiot. While your at it, please tell Romney he is once again AND in trouble for racial remarks:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/30/mitt-romney-palestinians_n_1718496.html?utm_hp_ref=politics
danfromwaltham says
No surprise the PLO hates Mitt. Perhaps instead of telling their people to blow themselves up, model their government after Israel, and so their people can prosper a little.
methuenprogressive says
Name the person, with a direct quote, who has predicted “destruction and mass flooding/hurricanes unless we lower our standard of living and use less carbon,” Dan.
Here, read everything, and come back next week:
http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
danfromwaltham says
Al Gore said so. Of course, Al gets a billion dollars if cap and tax passed.
Do you know if Liz Warren supports a carbon tax?
mike_cote says
Why is it different? Is this one of your many Dog Whistles? Why “Liz” this time???????
danfromwaltham says
I called Brown Scotty Too Hotty before, that mean I hate him?
For the millionth time, does she (EW or Prof. Warren) believe in a carbon tax? Or are you hoping she does, but doesn’t want to tell the voters?
johnd says
chirp, chirp, chirp…
mike_cote says
You and I obviously have different hotness scales, because Mr. Brown does not even score above a 1.0 on a scale of 1 to 10 for me. Of course, I like brains, not in the zombie way, but intelligence is my idea of hot, and Scott Brown is not even a Bic Lighter’s worth of HOT in my humble opinion. But then, I know several men who love “dumb as a rock” types AKA Rough Trade.
whosmindingdemint says
Why do you ask?
danfromwaltham says
I checked her website and clicked energy but zilch on cap and trade or carbon tax or allowing EPA to impose the carbon tax (which is why Scott voted against it).
No kidding, what is her position?
whosmindingdemint says
she’s on Facebook
danfromwaltham says
But surprised charley wants Scotty to support a carbon tax, but his own candidate won’t go on the record. Interesting, to say the least, profiles in courage………….
whosmindingdemint says
…
demeter11 says
Just as we’re moving toward general election time?
On April 6, 2011 Brown joined every Republican senator other than Susan Collins and four Democrats to support the McConnell budget amendment that would have taken away the EPA’s ability to regulate greenhouse cases and strike down ten other existing Clean Air Act carbon pollution rules.
In a Eric Moskowitz/Boston Globe story December 17, 2009: State Senator Scott P. Brown, the Republican nominee, expresses skepticism about climate change and says he believes that legislation proposed to curb emissions is premature and would harm businesses and energy consumers.
The issue is clearly on the mind of some voters. Just last week, Brown visited the home of a voter in Harvard, Jack Farren, who asked him, “Do you think that whole global warming thing is a big fraud?”
Brown’s answer was illustrative, in that he did not reject the fraud theory.
“It’s interesting. I think the globe is always heating and cooling,” he said. “It’s a natural way of ebb and flow. The thing that concerns me lately is some of the information I’ve heard about potential tampering with some of the information.”
Let’s not forget that Scotty asks and receives $$ from the Koch brothers and other producers of oil wealth, that effective campaign lubricant.
johnd says
Another trait Obama and Brown share?
demeter11 says
Changing the subject just doesn’t work.
Beside, we were talking about pollution, sickness and death.
Please show us the respect not to equate these things with anything, especially gay marriage.
johnd says
I am not hijacking this port or changing the subject but if you want to point to someone you don’t support doing something (playing politics) then you should be ready for someone else to point out someone you do support doing the same thing. Notice how Obama was criticized by the right for using Executive Privilege when he allowed the AG to withhold information from a Congressional inquiry and the left talked about how many times GW used Executive Privilege. There’s a lot of tit-for-tat here and I the above was my tat (on changing views as a pol gets closer to election time).
Trickle up says
code for business as usual.
stomv says
To believe that:
* climate change in the context of increasing GHGs is a bad thing for America,
* humans are contributing to climate change, and
* an all-of-the-above energy policy is appropriate
implies a distinct lack of logical thinking ability.
Here’s the deal: all of the above includes extracting and burning more petroleum and more coal in addition to consuming more natural gas, more solar, more wind, more hydro, more biomass, etc. The problem: if we do more of all of that, our emissions INCREASE, which means the GHG level in the atmosphere, already increasing, will increase at an increasing rate. This simply cannot co-exist with believing humans are a part of the climate change problem.
Scott Brown isn’t the only one espousing both of these positions, and to be sure there are Democrats who are guilty of it too. If you think the first two bullet points are correct, then you simply MUST advocate for burning fewer tons of coal and fewer barrels of oil. Maybe that’s done through energy efficiency [same output requiring less input], consuming less [less output requiring less input], or replacing fossils for renewables at a 1:1 ratio of usable energy [same output requiring same input]. Of course, any combination of the three gets at lower GHG emissions.
With regards to this issue, Scott Brown is either illogical or untruthful. He ain’t the only one of course.
whosmindingdemint says
Scott Brown:
MaryAnn: Yes. I believe that human activities are a contributing factor. That is why we need to develop a national energy policy. A true “all of the above approach” is necessary. When re-elected, I look forward to working on this issue.
methuenprogressive says
What’s he waiting for? Input from Kings and Queens at some secret meeting?
johnd says
Hopefully he will get reelected and work with Democrats on some solutions. I wish he would take a similar stance on Government waste which would allow that money to be used on more prudent programs.
whosmindingdemint says
So he voted “yea”to this:
S493 Amendment 183
To prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from promulgating any regulation concerning, taking action relating to, or taking into consideration the emission of a greenhouse gas to address climate change.
Scott Brown:
MaryAnn: Yes. I believe that human activities are a contributing factor. That is why we need to develop a national energy policy. A true “all of the above approach” is necessary. When re-elected, I look forward to working on this issue.
Not with votes like this he won’t
Elizabeth Warren:
If we invest now in a 21st century energy system, over time we can lower the costs of production for all of our businesses. Right now, renewable energy competes with old energies that get lots of special breaks from Washington. We know that we can generate power with alternative energy sources like wind, solar, and hydropower. We also know that we can make energy usage far more efficient. If we commit ourselves to clean energy and energy efficiency now, in the long run we can reduce price swings and lower our overall costs.
For the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, protecting our natural treasures also benefits our tourism industry and those who depend on its strength. From the Cape to the Berkshires, hundreds of thousands of people enjoy the Commonwealth’s beauty each year. We must protect our environment to support jobs and economic growth in the tourism industry.
Our commitment to 21st century energy has other benefits as well. As long as we subsidize dirty sources like oil, gas, and coal, we threaten the air we breathe and the water we drink. In Massachusetts, 1 in 10 people have asthma. Pollution is a serious public health challenge – and our children’s well-being is at risk.
Carbon-heavy fuels also intensify the risks of climate change. The science is unmistakable: Earth’s climate is changing and human activities are contributing to climate change. Climate change endangers our health and national security, it threatens agricultural production and the availability of clean water, and it risks floods and droughts.
Pretty clear where she stands.
danfromwaltham says
I read that fluff earlier today. Now I need to know if she wants me to pay approx $2K extra a year with a cap and tax scheme.
whosmindingdemint says
I’m not surprised.
How can Brown vote “yea”to this:
S493 Amendment 183
To prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from promulgating any regulation concerning, taking action relating to, or taking into consideration the emission of a greenhouse gas to address climate change.
And say this:
I believe that human activities are a contributing factor. That is why we need to develop a national energy policy. A true “all of the above approach” is necessary. When re-elected, I look forward to working on this issue.
Brown must be lying.
Glad I was able to clear that up for you.
danfromwaltham says
It was a back room way of unelected people taxing carbon as a pollutant, thus imposing a cap and tax system. The main reason I supported Brown was stop cap and tax, because my wallet, perhaps my job, depended upon it. Why I am flabbergasted nobody here can tell me where Prof. Warren stands on this issue.
IMO, Brown is aware the little propellers on trailer hitches are fake, symbolic, and unrealistic. We need fossil fuels for the next few decades, and asking people so suffer while having no impact on global temperatures, is preposterous.
whosmindingdemint says
is to promulgate regulation concerning, and take action relating to the emission of a greenhouse gas to address climate change. That is their job.
Now I asked you nice, do you agree that global warming is real and caused by human activity, primarily the burning of carbon based fuels?
SomervilleTom says
Why do you bother responding to garbage like this?
This guy doesn’t even read his own links.
whosmindingdemint says
But if we don’t he runs the site. I wish people would realize that and just get rid of him. Until then, hat to do?
karenc says
contradicts his admission that humans are “contributing factors”. The Republicans have used “all of the above” to mean that we need everything – more drilling including in ANWR and other refuges, shale oil, coal as well as the greener energies. Even then, someone needs to ask if his “all of the above” includes Capewind.
This sounds like the last part of his answer was a memorized sound bite that was developed by the Koch brothers and others to answer what is needed for a sound economy. As such it is something said by much of the right. Here, it does not fit with the earlier sentences.
whosmindingdemint says
We need and “all of the above policy.”
Starting with tax cuts for the rich.
danfromwaltham says
Cape Wind would not generate one watt of electricity if oil was not available? Did you know each turbine will have 190 gallons of oil? Times 130 turbines, or what I call bird killing guillotines, that comes to 24,700 gallons of oil. In addition, There are 40,000 gallons of transformer oil on a 10 story electrical platform.
You see, Scott Brown knows we cant go cold turkey on fossil fuels, without handcuffing our manufacturing sector and hurting the poor and middle class with high energy prices. Professor Warren can dream of alternative energies, because she comes from academia and government. Brown comes from a planet known as earth.
ANWR and XL Pipeline are not the final solution, but a bridge until we get cleaner energies at a more competitive price for the consumers. Brown is against Cape Wind, b/c it is the most expensive way to generate power. Why would we go down this road?
whosmindingdemint says
if you did you would want to redirect the $24 billion in taxpayer subsidies for big oil to helping the poor get a break.
I don’t think anyone has said we should go “cold turkey” as you put it and start shutting down fossil fuel burning power plants but maybe I missed it. I’m sure you can find a youtube video of the person who did say it.
Brown is against Cape Wind because he is paid by the oil lobbies to be against Cape Wind. We should go down the road of wind energy because wind turbines don’t burn fossil fuels and wind is 100% renewable energy source.
danfromwaltham says
Relying on ideas like Cape Wind, the most expensive form of electricity, we all end up living like Obama’s brother over in Kenya, in a hut with no modern day comforts. Which reminds me, why hasn’t Obama or VP Cheapskate helped him out?
whosmindingdemint says
Do you agree that global warming is real and caused by human activity, primarily the burning of carbon based fuels?
danfromwaltham says
must pay inflated energy prices, limit driving or luxuries we take for granted? HELL NOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!’!!!
whosmindingdemint says
Well any more discussion with this half-wit would be fruitless. I recommend he be sent to the death panel board for prompt disposal.
historian says
It is noteworthy that Senator Brown has answered a question on global warming at all. For the last 18 months his staff has refused to give any answer. That said, I do very much doubt his commitment to doing anything to actually try to stop it.
Human caused global warming poses a massive, clear and present threat, and all our collective talk of caring for children and future generations seems a sham if we are willing to take part in destroying the environment of the only planet we have.
To those who deny that global warming is occurring and that humans are causing such global warming and climate change, why should anyone take seriously any of your views on any subject if you are so ready to reject virtually all scientific opinion?
kbusch says
In fact, if elected, we’re more likely to get a Republican Senate. Instead of stopping climate change, they’re happy to promote it.
historian says
Either could work. I would also add modifying the WTO to create carbon tariffs. Needless to say, none of this is politically easy if voters and industries have grown accustomed to dumping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere and letting someone else in the future deal with the problem–well, the future is now.
danfromwaltham says
of Obama running up trillion dollar annual deficits with no care who will pay it back.
Energy should not be a luxury, it is a necessity to keep our standard of living.
whosmindingdemint says
We first must all agree that global warming is real and caused by human activity, primarily the burning of carbon based fuels.
Dan, do you agree that global warming is real and caused by human activity, primarily the burning of carbon based fuels?
historian says
So, do deniers really deny that global warming is occurring and that humans are causing it? Again if so, why do they think anyone take seriously anything they say about any policy or political issue?
Deniers, like all of us, only get one planet, yet they somehow think they gave a right to deny any amount of scientific evidence so that they can try to block any effort to stop global warming. It’s all very convenient to think about our standard of living as long as we assume that others will pay all the costs for our pumping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. Trashing the planet and inflicting harm on others will undoubtedly earn us respect.
Any plan to enact a cap and trade system or a carbon tax would also likely take place in steps to ease the transition.
On a side note it’s rich to hear of the concern about deficits after Reagan and George W. Bush.
kbusch says
where every topic is an opportunity to discuss everything with some guy from Waltham at great length. As Dan From Waltham has an opinion about everything and an answer for everyone, no one needs to wait long to get a turn!
dont-get-cute says
There is a must read Bill McKibben article in the new Rolling Stone. I’ve only skimmed it, but it seems his point is that we’ve got to stop the companies and countries that own the fossil fuel reserves to not extract and sell it, because there is way more oil left than the climate can handle.